First, I must mention that the domain of insults and personal attacks are the behavior of bullys and do not apply to the scientific method. I would have expected a more analytical approach along the lines of powayseller’s style (complete with references, bookmarks, footnotes and supporting information) and along the general style of piggington.com
One thing I have noticed in the whole global warming debate (beyond what this blog page has), is that the pro (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause} camp has provided very little in terms of scientific proof or analysis. On the other hand, the anti (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause) have presented scientific arguments. Reading both the pro and anti global warming papers, you can detect the difference.
1) That being said, a person on this site asked for proof that there were as many articles debunking C02 as the cause as supporting (lindismith). Here it is.. first some background. The perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged. The incorrect results of the study (called as a mistake) by the author were later admitted by the author. The following link references a copy of a letter from a professor at John Moores University, Liverpool UK. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
2) Second point is that the old famous ‘hocky stick’ temperature diagram is incorrect. It was based on cherry picked or forged data. It leaves out the Midieval Warm Period (when C02 levels were significantly lower than they are presently). The following reference shows the corrected graph alongside the ‘hockey stick’ graph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Scroll down almost half way, or search on the keyword ‘hockey-stick’. The rest of the article is also important.
3) The pro global waming camp claim that the anti global warming camp are just shills for the oil companies. This is another form of name calling, and is not a valid scientific method. This claim also ignores the vested interests of the scientific community. If there is no ‘crisis’, there is no funding for studies. Now scientists are getting worried that they may have ‘oversold’ the global warming scenario which may lead to loss of their credibility. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
(NOTE: There may be an advertisment pre-page popping up… skip it, the article is titled “Climate scientists feeling the heat”).
One of the better written papers on global warming is from this reference: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm
This site is footnoted and has additional references… be prepared for math and having to crack open some of your old college texts..
